Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile? (Part 7)

I really wish that the people that have been questioned would either be charged or told they will not be charged; some have been waiting for about five months.

I wonder why the media now allows itself to name someone when the police have not done so:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22212131
The Metropolitan Police did not name Mr Harris after he was first questioned or following his arrest and have still not formally identified him. He is described by them as Yewtree 5.

On BBC Breakfast they made a point of saying that he hadn't been identified by police but they didn't explain why they were naming him. I hadn't realised his name was published in The Sun until I read it here - I know people said beforehand that as soon as one paper names him, its likely they all would but the BBC isn't a paper.

I also wonder why the Sun decided to name him now? I'm presuming the arrest their talking about is the one from March, so its not really news, other than identifying who was arrested. Its not as if there isn't other news to be reporting at the moment, what with another sad event taking place in Boston overnight (shooting of a police officer I believe?) etc.

I wonder where people get their information from, if the police refuse to comment officially? are staff illegally(?) talking to the press? I heard Rolf has been bailed until May, so maybe we/he will find out whether he's to be charged or not then but even then, people should be thought of as innocent until proven guilty so its hard to judge until any such case has reached a verdict in court. Its hard to picture him as an abuser, it really is. I was a big fan as a kid, had one of his books and joined his TV show fan club etc.

On BBC Breakfast they made a point of saying that he hadn't been identified by police but they didn't explain why they were naming him. I hadn't realised his name was published in The Sun until I read it here - I know people said beforehand that as soon as one paper names him, its likely they all would but the BBC isn't a paper.

I also wonder why the Sun decided to name him now? I'm presuming the arrest their talking about is the one from March, so its not really news, other than identifying who was arrested. Its not as if there isn't other news to be reporting at the moment, what with another sad event taking place in Boston overnight (shooting of a police officer I believe?) etc.

I wonder where people get their information from, if the police refuse to comment officially? are staff illegally(?) talking to the press? I heard Rolf has been bailed until May, so maybe we/he will find out whether he's to be charged or not then but even then, people should be thought of as innocent until proven guilty so its hard to judge until any such case has reached a verdict in court. Its hard to picture him as an abuser, it really is. I was a big fan as a kid, had one of his books and joined his TV show fan club etc.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...etectives.html
The national media had not named him for legal reasons until The Sun did so today.
The newspaper indulged in a classic piece of Fleet Street subterfuge by producing a 'dummy' front page for its earlier editions this morning before naming Mr Harris as a Yewtree suspect in its final edition.
Dummy front pages are used traditionally by newspapers to keep stories exclusive for as long as possible.
His agent and lawyers have declined to comment. But the Mail has been told that Harris vehemently denies the allegations.
Harris, 83, became the 11th man to be detained over the controversial inquiry which critics say has turned into a ‘celebrity witch-hunt’.

I heard Rolf has been bailed until May, so maybe we/he will find out whether he's to be charged or not then but even then, people should be thought of as innocent until proven guilty so its hard to judge until any such case has reached a verdict in court. Its hard to picture him as an abuser, it really is. I was a big fan as a kid, had one of his books and joined his TV show fan club etc.

The problem is even if those involved are found to be 100% innocent with no charges brought there will be plenty of people who will say, because of the subject matter, "There's no smoke without fire".

Harris, 83, became the 11th man to be detained over the controversial inquiry which critics say has turned into a ‘celebrity witch-hunt’.

I am starting to think it is turning in to this. The police seriously messed up by turning a blind eye to Savile and so it seems to me they are now targeting any man who was famous in the 1970s and worked for the BBC in a "fishing trip" to see if they can catch anyone, irrespective of the damage they will do to innocent people's careers or reputations.

Met Rolf a few years ago at a craft fair. He and I commiserated as "craft widows", and loitered around the coffee bar, keeping an eye on the ever-growing piles of Stuff that our dearly-beloveds were purchasing. He was polite and friendly, but nothing like his screen persona (which is reasonable, since he was on a day out with his wife, not being an entertainer).

When rumours of his arrest began to circulate I was appalled - more so than with any of the other arrestees. This is probably because he was such a big (and innocent) part of my childhood. I very much hope that he has been arrested for what he might know about others, rather than as a consequence of allegations made about him directly.

In what way does grimtales1 statement imply that they think he's guilty? Seriously?

In the context of this thread where "there's no smoke.." and "Sh!t sticks" inferences abound - to "hope" someone is innocent, when there is absolutely (in the public domain) no evidence to suggest anything other than innocence - to me, implies a belief/fear that that someone is guilty.

And, sadly, those sort of beliefs / fears when placed on an innocent individual are impossible to remove - moreover, I would venture to suggest that the OP's opinion / feelings toward RH will have been forever tainted - even if there is no evidence and/or further action taken.

In the context of this thread where "there's no smoke.." and "Sh!t sticks" inferences abound - to "hope" someone is innocent, when there is absolutely (in the public domain) no evidence to suggest anything other than innocence - to me, implies a belief/fear that that someone is guilty.

To hope someone you like/are a fan of is innocent when they have been arrested is a natural reaction. Doesn't imply that the poster thinks he's guilty at all.

Harris was originally interviewed under caution by Scotland Yard officers on Operation Yewtree last November, five days after they visited his home in Berkshire when he was not there. The Met said in an earlier statement: "The man from Berkshire was interviewed under caution on suspicion of sexual offences after attending south London police premises by appointment. On 24 November 2012 officers had executed a search warrant at an address in Berkshire."

It is understood that Harris was arrested last month but not charged with any offence. He has been bailed until May.

After Harris's arrest in March days before his 83rd birthday, a Scotland Yard spokesman said: "An 82-year-old man from Berkshire was arrested by officers on Operation Yewtree on suspicion of sexual offences. He has been bailed to a date in May pending further inquiries.

"The individual falls under the strand of the investigation we have termed 'others'."

Several high-profile figures have been arrested in connection with the investigation including the PR consultant Max Clifford, the comedian Freddie Star, the radio DJ Dave Lee Travis, the former TV producer Wilfred De'Ath and the comedian Jim Davidson. They all deny any wrongdoing and De'Ath was released without charge last month.

Me too, out of everyone being arrested and named over the last year, he's the one I really wanted to be innocent

Hope he is.

Couldn't agree more. If the claims against him are proven malicious or to settle scores, I hope the accusers are sharply brought to book. He's an 83 year-old man. However, being elderly doesn't mean that he is innocent of 'historical' offences (and nor does it mean he's guilty- just to clarify) and, if there is reason to believe he has committed them, he needs to account for himself in court. In his case in particular, I really, really hope he's innocent. Savile, I never had the time of day for. Same with some of the others in the frame- even before any of this came out. Rolf's a bit different.

It's actually getting kind of comical. It's actually looking like any UK based television light-entertainer over the age of 65 was basically a sexual deviant or pervert

I'm sort of expecting Paul Daniels to be busted next.lol!

But seriously, I do suspect there was probably a "culture" of this sort of behavior, when this sort of behavior was regarded as acceptable back then. So I wouldn't be surprised if most of these guys getting nicked were involved in dodgy sexual activity.

It's actually getting kind of comical. It's actually looking like any UK based television light-entertainer over the age of 65 was basically a sexual deviant or pervert

I'm sort of expecting Paul Daniels to be busted next.lol!

But seriously, I do suspect there was probably a "culture" of this sort of behavior, when this sort of behavior was regarded as acceptable back then. So I wouldn't be surprised if most of these guys getting nicked were involved in dodgy sexual activity.

This 'Operation Yewtree' is fast dissolving into farce. Much though I dislike Jim Davidson's act etc, how he can be pulled in under it (and DLT too) for (allegedly) assaulting grown women is beyond me. As soon as people hear 'Savile Police' the assumption is that it's about assaulting children and that does not seem to be the case.

Savile, Savile and others, 'Others'? I don't even know what this means. Others could be EVERY other historical offence (groping etc) (allegedly) committed by a light entertainer.

Allegations involving people who were adults at the time of the allged attack need to be renamed and de-coupled from Yewtree, I think.

Mr Harris is being interviewed because of a claim by ONE female adult, not a classroom full of children as you lot would like to think,
So basically its one word against another for something that may/may not have happened in the 1970s

Jezus! can you imagine if Rolf had been dead, the public would have had riot with their fantasies like Jimmy Saville

The problem is even if those involved are found to be 100% innocent with no charges brought there will be plenty of people who will say, because of the subject matter, "There's no smoke without fire".

I am starting to think it is turning in to this. The police seriously messed up by turning a blind eye to Savile and so it seems to me they are now targeting any man who was famous in the 1970s and worked for the BBC in a "fishing trip" to see if they can catch anyone, irrespective of the damage they will do to innocent people's careers or reputations.

I agree. They better be careful, given whats at stake, this could end up with a grim consequence for the police to have to answer to, potentially - ugh

Quote:

Does raise some imp questions why it took 5 months after I was the 1st to name Rolf Harris being interview re sexual offences #OpYewtree

Seems like he's showing off about being the first to name him - thats not something I'd be especially proud of. I'm really not sure if it is a good idea to name him, given he hasn't been charged, so I tweeted him 'why is it right to name them before they've even been officially charged? surely it'd be better to wait until charged?' but not had a reply...hmmm(!). I can understand the argument of it potentially leading to other witnesses or victims coming forward but I think its a big judgement call because, as others have said, his reputation will be in tatters after this and he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law yet. At least some, if not most, people will look at him in a different light now I'd imagine, even if its totally unwarranted.

I'd like to think that they might not have to publically name the person for people to come forward, if they could do perhaps a more general appeal for victims of abusers within the entertainment business in the last 50 years or something to come forward? I've heard people today (including a child protection officer) making some quite crude jokes about Rolf - its not really a laughing matter the way I see it, especially considering there's been talk about him being extremely low. I don't imagine today has helped his state of mind much and he hasn't even been charged? :-/ do we know what he's being questioned in relation to? its all quite unclear, heck we don't even know what it is they may know, have seen or supposedly committed.